Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Sood

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (Not opposed to speedy renomination for AfD) Missvain (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Sood

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Amit Sood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is entirely self-sourced, as was most of the content I just removed for making woo-woo claims based on primary sources. Google finds no RS to use here. There are other people called Amit Sood who account for the handful of RS within the 96 Google hits I get for the name quoted. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


      • Hundreds of citations are not considered low from what I know. Happy to be proven wrong. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we are talking the initial evidence of an influential work that we later can write more about from 3rd party sources, I would expect that the number of citations back to one or more of a person's papers to start around the low thousands, or have an impression number of papers in the high 500 range. This person does not have that. --Masem (t) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. That's famous, not just notable. Almost nobody has that kind of record unless they are in NAS/ Royals Society territory., which is much more than just notable. (or unless one of the papers happens to be a major clinical trial, and then there would be dozens of authors to share it) For reason specified below, this isn't a good article to be concerned with citations, . DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Citation counts run high in medicine, and the subject's do not stand out as exceptional, so I'm not seeing a pass of WP:PROF#C1. (The Google Scholar results include some false positives, like authors with different middle initials, and the genuine results feature long author lists with no indication that Sood himself took a leading role.) A couple mid-level administrative positions at the Mayo Clinic aren't the university-president-or-equivalent status that WP:PROF#C6 asks for. "Fellow" isn't the ACP's highest level of membership; the parallel to an IEEE or APS Fellow would be a "master" at ACP. So, WP:PROF#C3 is out. On top of all that, in order to describe accomplishments in the subject's field, we would need sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. XOR'easter (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. His citation counts would be good for a technical topic in a low-citation field, but are nothing special in pop-psych (which is what I think this is more than medicine). He has written a lot of books but I could find zero reviews. And I found a lot of churnalism publicity-pieces, or worse publicity pieces about other publicity pieces like this announcement for a TV episode, but only one piece that looks both reliable and in-depth (while still being a publicity piece): this one in the Star Tribune. So although there are hints towards WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG, none of them is convincing to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete His MA profile is not particularly impressive in a high citation field with only about 3k citations. He has some highly cited work (first author paper with 322 citations). --hroest 02:58, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am also seeing lot of coverage otherwise, for example an interview with Forbes [7], mention at Miss Malini [8], podcasts and radio [9], [10], coming on CBS News Sunday Morning [11]. All of this indicates notability at Criteria 7. Those who are saying that we need thousands of citations in medicine are generalizing medicine as a whole which isn't right. Medicine is a broad domain. His work seems to be inclined towards stress and mental health. So if we are indeed trying to set standards to understand if work is highly cited, we need to compare with his peers in the same domain and not from general medicine maybe. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
signicicant coverage is not the standard for NPROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF#C7, which concerns substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, asks for more than passing media appearances, since those are a typical part of the job. My concern is that the "multiple mentions" are, by that standard, unremarkable. He works on stress and health; of course he's going to get quoted or interviewed here and there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. speedy delete as intent & original article was entirely promotional and rescue is impractical--this is a case for TNT. ' (see my comment lower down) DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(previous omment): The effective standard for WP:PROF in medicine has bene stable for the several years years as 2 or more works with over 100 citations each, so it seems he passes, with 15 such articles (previously, it was 1 article with over 100, but the amount of publication and multiple authorship keeps increasing) . DavidE seems to want to change to a much higher figure, but I don;'t think there's consensus for that. Even if there were, Sood has 6 papers with over 200 citations each, and that would certainly be enough.. . The argument that it has to meet GNG also is simply wrong, and can not be supported by a reading of the notability guidelines (I'll just mention that when I came here in 2006 some people didn't yet accept WP:PROF, but I pointed out that anyone who had even one paper with , say, 20 citations, would have at least 2 of them that discussed it substantially--and that would be enough to make almost every assistant professor notable, tho the analysis for each would take considerable effort. Not even I wanted to go quite that far; the furtherest I've ever argued for is associate professor. ) DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG-- With respect, where and when was the standard that 2 works with 100 citations is highly cited established? I'm not convinced that a few users agreeing across AfDs (if that's what this is) really makes a standard... I'm curious to see actual links to discussions &c. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it depends on how many authors there are. A publication with 100 cites by one author carries more weight than the same publication with ten authors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
This can get very complicated:At one extreme, there are biomed papers like multicenter studies where every physician who contributes a case is listed as an author. A single author paper in clinical medicine is likely to be a case study, which is not significant, or a authoritative review, which very much is. Experimental work always has multiple authors: it is normally conducted in groups supported by a grant to a single senior individual, divided into smaller groups headed by a post-doc and 1 or more grad students and often an1 or 2 undergrads. (this is a great oversimplification, there are innumerable variations). The idea can come from the head of the lab, who recruits a postdoc to supervise the experiments conducted by the grad students. Or the head may just be providing the money and space for innovative postdocs or grad students to carry out their own ideas.
What academic appointment committees look for to show that someone important is the what they have done independently after their postodc, tho it often overlaps. And in rare cases someone brilliant will come up with something independent and important as a grad student . This can be a major research project in sociology of science; I can judge it approximately for some but not all fields, for there are some universal elements. And an additional way for at least some consistency is to compare with others in the field, both in and out of WP. That can be yet a further substanatial project.
But that's not our problem. Our need is only to make a rough estimate, not hire someone who we will have to work with for the rest of our career. There are the ones so influential in their field that they must be an in encyclopedia , and those so uninfluential that they shouldn't be. The ones we end up discussing here are in the middle and could rationally go either way. And the way we're set up, there are only those two choices. So there is no exact answer, and no need for an exact answer. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's something odd here. There's a partial disconnect between his research work, with is stress-related studies, where he has multiple works over 200. citations each , and the details clearly indicate he is at least co-principal investigator, and the popular books, which won't show him notable by WP:PROF, but might possible as WP:AUTHOR. Looking at the arti e history of the article, it was written by someone paying attention only to the pop psych stuff. The puffery was removed, and I just added the real science. But as far as the articlwe goes, there is no point rescuing it. This is straight G11 promotionalism . If we wa ant an article on him as a scientist, we should start over. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and therefore I changed my !vote above to speedy delete G11. He's a notable enough scientist, but the rest of the article, especially the original article, is so utterly bad that it needs to be removed from the article history. And I am certainly not about to do the work involved for someone who would, apparently, pay to use WP for this sort of advertising. (I'll copy my comments on WP:PROF to my user talk for further discussion, as a general question). DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes NACADEMIC, and probably NAUTHOR also; concerns wrt promotional editng can be addressed through re-writing and at noticeboards. But, fundamentally, fails G11 as it would not need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as [an] encyclopedia article. ——Serial 13:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amit_Sood&oldid=1026231005"